Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @04:07PM
from the making-it-free dept.

Diggester writes "Jailbreaking is a way to break off from the limitations imposed by the mobile vendor to download additional applications and themes etc. which aren't available otherwise. It provides root access to the device by use of custom kernels. It is common with the iDevices and has been rendered legal by the efforts of EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) in July 2010. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is now determined to make Jailbreaking legal for all the consumer electric goods. They have asked the US copyright office to declare it legal to jailbreak all the devices like smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles etc. no matter who the vendor is. The aim behind this plead is to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which prohibits such an access to the user."

Imagine if you could only put Campbell's Soup in your soup bowl, or only put Folgers coffee in your Folgers-branded coffee mug.

If there's no reason for a restriction on what I can do with the hardware I buy, other than restricting consumer choice, there's no reason for the restriction. If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?

Typically in cases like that it would likely wind up as a class action suit. And you'd still get basically nothing, if you're lucky you would get some trinket which is of little value to you several years later.

At the same time, I bought *HARDWARE*. Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example. The PS3 would make a GREAT media center to stream from my TV recording box, save that I can't load a custom firmware package for Linux AND keep the ability to run current games.

I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.

Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point.
If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code.
Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games.
Phone again fall in to the same category. Buggy firmware could cause big problems to their networks, so restricting the ability to load custom firmware is in their best interests. Restricting what you can do with the official firmware is a different story.
Perhaps it would bea good idea for devices designed to connect to providers networks to have two sets of firmware. A locked down layer to control and protect network access and the OS (although this is probably already done. I recall my days with HTC phones 5 years ago having separate radio firmeware bundled in the image that is transferred to the device)

Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point.

What point might that be?

If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code.

I don't give a flying FUCK about their networks. Since the Sony break-in, I've had my box firewalled off from their fucking network, and it's never going near them again.

Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games.

I fail to see where shitty planning on their part constitutes an obligation on my part to buy ANYTHING from them. I bought a piece of hardware. If they sold it at a loss, and I don't buy "enough" games from them to make up for it, then they don't have enough games worth buying. There is no contractual obligation for me to buy anything else from them.

Phone again fall in to the same category. Buggy firmware could cause big problems to their networks, so restricting the ability to load custom firmware is in their best interests.

And oddly enough, with phones, the FTC already ruled that the benefit to consumers to open the phones OUTWEIGHS the benefit to the phone carriers to "secure their networks" in that sense. So you're already wrong.

No. That's not reasonable at all. That kind of thing should be explicitly illegal along the lines of other forms of network neutrality that should be enforced. Sony's network is not small enough and private enough such that it should be able to skirt the kinds of rules that meatspace public accomodations have to follow.

so you to be like say Comcast you must a rent a PC (at high prices) say $20/m for a basic pc going up to a $100+ for a pc with gameing hardware. from comcast to get on line and then it's all locked down and you can only rent apps and games from the comcast store.

Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example.

100% agreed.

I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.

100% disagreed. Any such law would be immediately leveraged to attack open source, in ways that are unpredictable at the moment. We must never, ever have government dictating technological design.

At the same time, I bought *HARDWARE*. Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example. The PS3 would make a GREAT media center to stream from my TV recording box, save that I can't load a custom firmware package for Linux AND keep the ability to run current games.

Problem is, Joe Average doesn't know a thing.

It's why Apple has to resort to using crappy pentalobe screws - anyone with half a clue can ea

Yes, I can do whatever the fuck I want with things that I buy. That's the purpose of ownership. Now there are a small number of things that the government tells me I can't do with my property, but those are typically things which affect other people.

If Sony doesn't like people doing what they will with the hardware, then they have the option of not selling it. They can rent it to people or they can withdraw completely from the market. They can't have it both ways either they're selling it or they aren't. Se

It can be the cause of stressing components past the design limits.
If the original firmware limited tx power to 50% due to thermal design and the custom firmware ran it at 100% and components failed, whos fault is it?
What if the charging circuit was software controlled and the custom firmware wasn't set correctly for the manufactures design and the battery exploded, killing the cute little lolcat sitting next to it?

It can be the cause of stressing components past the design limits.
If the original firmware limited tx power to 50% due to thermal design and the custom firmware ran it at 100% and components failed, whos fault is it?
What if the charging circuit was software controlled and the custom firmware wasn't set correctly for the manufactures design and the battery exploded, killing the cute little lolcat sitting next to it?

Good points. But what we're missing here is the potential for a 3rd party after market, similar to VARs and PC support businesses, who offer value-added services under their own warranty.

With vendor-locked devices, such a market can't easily exist, especially if they're hounded out of business by $VENDOR's lawyers.

But it should exist. More to the point it absolutely should have the right to exist. Because of that, I'm 100% in support of the EFF on this campaign.

Imagine if you change your own spark plugs and two weeks later the rear passenger wheel falls off. The manufacturer should have to show that what you did caused the problem, just like they have to with any other product. Now granted, if I try to overclock the processor to 2x its normal rate and melt the damn thing that's my own fault, but if I unlock WiFi tethering and get a row of dead pixels on my screen the two are almost certainly unrelated.

For example, in the automotive industry, you DO NOT void your warranty (no matter what the dealer tries to pull on you) by installing a K&N air filter. But you DO void your warranty by reboring the cylinders and putting in oversized pistons. This is all regulated and the manufacturers don't get to just decide you void your warranty if you sneeze inside the car, the way computer industry manufacturers do.

What we need here is common sense regulatory involvement. Apple needs to be told to quite the ridiculous arms race and just let 0.01% of people run weird software on their hardware - just like GM needed to be told that bolt-on upgrades don't void the powertrain warranty.

Because they want to charge you for the privilege. Remember, corporations are machines built to make money and that is all. They will fight anything that reduces the amount of money they can make no matter how completely idiotic and absurd it is. Politicians have already sided with corporations, democrats and republicans alike. Here's hoping judges are not as easily bought off and will have some common sense.

In the case of geohot and the PS3, I say Fuck Sony. They played bait-and-switch with console features, after they falsely advertised "Linux" and only delivered a stripped down version without full hardware access.

What harmed their business is the fact that they're a bunch of fucking soulless, criminal asshats who pulled those two things, then let their customers' personal information into the wild. Fuck them.

Because lots of people with more influence and money than you have spent decades convincing the government that allowing you freedom of mixing&matching your coffee and mug brands could potentially cause a direct reduction on their maximum possible profits. You see, they've furthermore convinced said government that this potential reduction constitutes you harming them. Since you just inferred you agree that people shouldn't be allowed to harm others while using their consumer goods in an unintended fashion they've invalidated your argument in favor of allowing this type of behavior using an extension of your very own reasoning. Sucks huh?

Imagine if you could only put Campbell's Soup in your soup bowl, or only put Folgers coffee in your Folgers-branded coffee mug.

If there's no reason for a restriction on what I can do with the hardware I buy, other than restricting consumer choice, there's no reason for the restriction. If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?

There is a reason and it is a simple one. Apple (and their co conspirators) would make less money.

If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?

Short answer - You shouldn't.

A slightly longer answer - In a perfect world, where you couldn't hurt others, you shouldn't.

A longer, but probably more realistic answer - Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network. Because the vendor of the device needs to provide support, a minimal set of software configurations will lower support costs. More importantly, rogue apps having access to the OS level of a device may very well allow the device to operate out of specification, causing interference to other devices (i.e., damage to their users) around them. I know that you are the exception and would never let your device's code have a bug but, frankly, with the level of software assurance anywhere, I sure wouldn't trust you.

So, yeah, most of these systems were designed to keep you from changing things for monetary reasons. But they also keep you from using your programmable RFI generator from f*cking up my access. So I'm not so hot to change that, if you know what I mean.

Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network.

If this was true, then they would deny access to any device they didn't recognize. Yet the GSM networks are obligated to allow any compliant device on their network.

It's not really a fair comparison. When you buy a hard drive, you are generally buying the actual hard drive. But when you buy software, you aren't usually buying the software, but rather a license to use the software, and the license can include terms which may prohibit modification of the software or using a modified version of the software.

Many of the hardware devices we buy, such as smart phones and video game consoles, contain a good deal of sophisticated software or firmware (which is just software

When you buy such a device, you are buying hardware, as well as a license to use the included software or firmware often under the condition that the software not be modified by the end user. This is where many of the physical good analogies break down.

Thus, it should be my RIGHT to install an open source version of software, any software OS or package, that runs on the device.

And it should be CRIMINAL behavior on the part of the asshat corporations, to interfere with this right.

I gave you money, you gave me a product. If I buy a book, the publisher can't sue for me for crossing out the paragraphs I don't like and writing in the margins and nothing the publisher puts in the front cover of the book will convince me otherwise. What I do with the information contained in the product I purshase is my business, so long as I'm not distributing those changes to other people the makers of the software should have absolutely no standing to say what I do with it.

Nothing about copyright gives them the right to prevent me from modifying their copyrighted products for my personal use. They merely have the ability to keep me from making a copy for commercial purposes.

The license BS has got to go, it doesn't work for books, movies, music, or anything else really. Software is not some special snowflake in this regard.

The point still stands. When you buy a phone, you're buying the hardware in addition to the software.

Which means that you should be able to swap the software loaded into the hardware at your pleasure.

But that's not necessarily the jailbreaking issue. Jailbreaking is not, say, Rockbox. Jailbreaking entails swapping the software with certain restrictions for a 3rd-party modified form of the software that does not have the same restrictions. The modification of the software is really the core of the jailbreaki

I vaguely recall a judge pretty much saying that jailbreaking is not illegal, but may void the warranty. I only remember due to the large number of jokes of how Steve Jobs was just loving it since he now didn't have to support millions of jailbroken phones.

Legislative action would be nice, but if it's already done, then let's not waste the time.

It appears that provision was intended to prevent "tie-in" sales. A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law [ftc.gov] gives the example of vacuum cleaner manufacturers requiring branded vacuum cleaner bags to keep the warranty in effect.

Because the firmware on your phone is not (yet) a monetized product distinct from the phone itself, I suspect requiring a specific vendor's firmware does not fall afoul of the spirit of the law. Also note that the vendor is allowed to void the warranty because of damage caused by incorrect service or modification, which I would assume can be extended to damage caused by buggy third-party firmware.

Running software not vetted (and sold) by the manufacturer (read games) sounds like it would fit. But everything else seems to be thrown out of the window where copyright is involved. "No, you can't copy the snipped of code that is required for a cartridge to work in your printer even though the manufacturer intentionally crippled it that way, that's stealing!"

I'm sure Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will now be even determined to make sure your console only works with a network connection. At least they'll still be able to ban users from their network for jailbreaking consoles.

(I'm one of the few Slashdotters who's anti-piracy because I think stopping piracy increases the incentive for developers to invest time and money creating software for the platform. No wonder all the huge growth in game-sales over the past ten years has been in consoles, while PC sales

Unfortunatly DRM is more about market control and medium control then preventing piracy. It was shown time and time again that all DRM is eventualy broken and will not stop the pirate. It will however stop the used seller, region lock the product and force antiquated distribution pratice.
Currently piracy is the convinient excuse. I would think that if piracy would go away tomorrow our media would still contain DRM just in case...

The rise of consoles as a gaming platform has squat to do with DRM, or rather it does but not in the way you think it does. Nonsense DRM on PCs KILLS the usability of that platform for games. It makes a PC even more of a bother than it would be otherwise.

Computer programs that enable the installation and execution of lawfully obtained software on a personal computing device, where circumvention is performed by or at the request of the device's owner.

So, for any device you buy, you can install GNU/Linux, or Rockbox, or OpenWRT, or Sugar, OpenMoko, etc.

Their argument is based on recognising the value of the jailbreak-exemption which was granted in 2009, and saying that SFLC's suggested exemtion is what's needed in 2012 and beyond to achieve that same sort of goal.

There's no dense legalese in the document. It's a readable set of arguments with numbers and examples to back them up.

This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.

I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc). The more I get older, the more I'm convinced that most politicians are just mouthpieces of a PR firm that has voting privileges.

This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.

No. In fact, there's no one who is even halfway bright.

I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc).

Unless you can convince large corporate donors, trial lawyers, unions, etc. that this is in their best interest, you haven't a prayer of getting elected, much less enacting any legislation.

If you want to change the way things work, you need to become very rich first. After which, you'll have a vested interest in making sure things don't change. This is true in all democracies.

It means nothing except that a company couldn't threaten to get you thrown in a real jail for jailbreaking your devices. They'll still be able to do whatever they want to the hardware and software to prevent you from doing it.

Honestly, I can't imagine it'll be that huge an implication. Just because it'll be legal doesn't at all mean Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony need to make it easy, nor does it stop them from ruining old jailbreak methods with new firmware, like what they do now, to whatever effectiveness it does.

It just means fewer people get arrested for it. And I don't think I've heard about many arrests in that area lately.

If it were legal then it would legitimize businesses that build themselves around provided help or tools for people to jailbreak their devices.

Think of it as if modding an Xbox was legal. There would be tons of companies providing quality mod chips and services with healthy competition instead of having to go to someones shady friend who bought a shady mod chip from a shady website from China.

Honestly, I can't imagine it'll be that huge an implication. Just because it'll be legal doesn't at all mean Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony need to make it easy, nor does it stop them from ruining old jailbreak methods with new firmware, like what they do now, to whatever effectiveness it does.

If it's legal it can be widely advertised and freely undertaken. If jailbroken phones are desirable, their legality will create a market for jailbreakable phones and (with time) vendors will try to expand into that market.

I don't know how much difference the legality will make when jailbreaking will continue to void your warranty/ violate the ToS/EULA for whatever you're jailbreaking. I really doubt breaking the law is the reason most people don't mod their Xboxes, for example.

If you cannot do what you like with you hardware then you obviously do not own it. If you do not own it you are not responsible for recycling it. Which means you just have to return all your old devices the store where you got them and it is there problem (cost) to recycle.

If you cannot do what you like with you hardware then you obviously do not own it.

You can't legally saw the barrel off your shotgun, remove the airbags from your car, or torture your dog. We give government the power to make laws abridging our use of our own possessions. I think modding should be legal, with exceptions as necessary (reselling a car without disclosing modded brake-control firmware, for example), but I don't think the definition of ownership is the right way to argue the point.

Exactly. Thing is, most people (particularly in the US) don't "own" their phones -- they get them at a subsidized price in exchange for a lengthy contract. If owning a device legally requires you to purchase a service, the device owns you.

Isn't there a complication for phones? Jailbreaking your PS3 is one thing but a phone device connects to the phone network and falls under FCC jurisdiction in the U.S. Is it possible that jailbreaking may void the FCC license that allows the device to connect to the phone network?

Let me tell you a story about an FCC-approved transmitter. It ran on an open frequency at burst data, 12ms at 50mW. The harmonics and power were too high for the FCC. The FCC suggested that I put in a delay of 87ms then a 1ms burst. They would then average out the signal strength over 100ms and use the average power for the transmission for the tests.

I changed the code, it passed the tests, and microchip sends the chips pre-programmed by the reel.

that the manufacturers right and its my right to not have to buy what is locked. I have a huge issue with being called a criminal, pirate, goat fucker or what ever for wanting to modify hardware to make it perform better or do something it wasn't intended to like say the bomb trigger to blow up the White House or Pentagon.

In this instance, we are not simply "users." We are owners. We have purchased devices, we have payed for them with our money, either upfront or by signing up for a multi-year contract, after which time the device belongs to the buyer. We are owners, buyers, proprietors, NOT users. We may be users from the point of view of the software licenses that usually come attached to these types of devices, but we should be able to wipe that software and install whatever we please on the OUR devices...

That's rather the whole goal, though, now isn't it... that you don't own your hardware, but lease all of it, with the root level control not in your own hands. It makes life much simpler (and thus profitable) for the producers of said hardware. It also ensures that they can grab whatever data they want, whenever they want, without any control over it by you, the lessee of said device.

They do. They were specifically given the right to add exemptions. I personally feel this is too much to ask though as it almost completely removes the teeth from the law when it comes to hardware copy protection. But, hey, I'm not in charge here.

Jail-breaking the device doesn't let you out of the contract. If I buy a phone from AT&T with a 2 year contract and jail-break it, I still have a two year commitment with AT&T for service. I don't believe that has any bearing on the fact that I bought (not leased) the device, regardless of what I paid for it. If they don't want me to break it, provide access to all the features on the device rather than greatly restricting it.
Just don't see that phone subsidies (read, we pay to much for our wireless service contracts) are an issue at all.

The [mobile] devices are subsidized...by you. The ridiculously high monthly cost of a contract more than covers the cost of the device; astronomical cancellation fees pay for the device if you decide to jump ship. Also, this is about a lot more than just mobile devices.

The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should.

Why? You're still in a contract with them. In fact, it's even more beneficial to them if you jailbreak - you still have to pay them for their services, but if you go to another carrier as well, they don't have to provide them. Free money.

The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should. If they can't then it becomes harder for them to make their money back and they will stop subsidizing devices. Once the contract is over, or if you paid full price, then you should be able to do whatever you want.

The contract obligates you to maintain service for 1 or 2 years or else pay for the phone. Once you've signed the contract it's your phone. Hint: who's on the hook to repair it if it breaks?

Manufacturers won't have to void warranties for jailbroken devices. They can just deny owners access to online services like Xbox LIVE and the App Store because security can't be guaranteed if modded devices are allowed into a walled garden.

I am 100% ok with that scenario. I don't think the EFF will manage to get that far, though.